The United Nations Security Council’s predictably supine response to the latest alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria is that “there must be clarity on what happened”. It is hard to decide which is more grotesque: The attack or the reaction to it.
“Clarity” is all that is requested regarding perhaps the worst atrocity so far in the conflict, one that has killed many hundreds of civilians — at least 1,600 according to the Free Syrian Army — and is being compared to Saddam Hussain’s infamous gassing of Iraqi Kurds 25 years ago. Simple “clarity” will satisfy the international community. “Clarity,” not justice, is apparently all what the victims and their families deserve.
To add insult to injury, UN diplomats reportedly said veto-wielding Security Council members Russia and China opposed the language that would have demanded a UN probe, while of course insisting that their ally Bashar Al Assad is innocent. This despite previous statements from Russia that it opposed the use of chemical weapons by either side in the conflict.
The Security Council’s reaction is not just pathetic, it is dangerous, signalling that future chemical attacks can take place with impunity, as they seem to have already done. The UN may as well announce its official abandonment of the Syrian people.
UN mission
Its inspectors, currently in the country, have no mandate to visit the site of the massacre, only three other sites where chemical weapons were allegedly used on previous occasions. The Syrian regime is reportedly resisting pressure to allow inspectors to visit the site, in the eastern Damascus suburb of Ghouta. The UN’s Deputy Secretary-General said an investigation could only take place with the regime’s consent. In other words, forget it. Furthermore, the scope of the mission is simply to ascertain whether such weapons have been used, not who used them. This challenges the argument that the regime will not carry out such an attack under the noses of UN inspectors
The mission could not be more pointless and that is exactly what Al Assad had in mind. UN inspectors were only allowed in after months of negotiations with the regime in Damascus, which had previously broken its promises to allow UN and Arab League monitors unfettered movement — forcing them to withdraw in frustration — while insisting it has nothing to hide. The ridiculously limited terms of this probe were basically dictated by one of the parties accused of carrying out the atrocities that are being investigated. How perverse.
Not only is the regime maintaining its innocence, it has gone so far as to call this latest incident “fabricated”. This despite a plethora of independent chemical weapons experts saying the scale and detail of the footage makes it almost impossible to stage and that the victims showed classic symptoms of nerve-gas poisoning. Never mind the absurdity of claims that the attack was carried out by rebels ... in a rebel-held area.
Convenient ignorance
Tragically, we may never know exactly what happened to the innocent victims of this and other atrocities. That not only suits Al Assad and his allies, but also those of the Syrian opposition, for as long as irrefutable evidence remains elusive, they can shirk their responsibility to act on their now-meaningless statements of concern and condemnation.
This is particularly true of US President Barack Obama, who declared a year ago that the use or movement of chemical weapons constituted a “red line” that “would change my calculus” and “change my equation”.
Obama “may actually be quite relieved that the UN isn’t pressing harder to discover the truth,” wrote Brian Whitaker, former Middle East editor for the Guardian newspaper. “So long as the charges against Al Assad remain unproven, Obama can avoid difficult decisions over how to respond while blaming Russia and China for their obstruction in the Security Council.”
The Associated Press revealed on Thursday that according to a letter from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to a congressman, the US government opposes even limited military intervention that would not require ground troops — despite being able to destroy Al Assad’s air force and shift the balance of power — because it believes the rebels would not “promote” American interests. Further proof, if any were needed, that there will be no “red line” of any sort to cross.
Lack of options
The international community’s shameful inaction is rightly blamed for the prolongation and intensification of the conflict and constitutes complicity in the resulting death and destruction. However, in terms of taking concrete measures against future use of chemical weapons, the options are severely limited, if non-existent.
As such, France’s refusal to elaborate on what kind of “reaction with force” it had in mind if chemical weapons use is confirmed is most likely deliberate and an empty threat. Similarly, Turkey’s foreign minister declared that a “red line was crossed” and urged the international community to “intervene as soon as possible” and “act decisively”. What did he mean by this? Sanctions, as if they have made any discernible difference so far.
France has ruled out ground troops as “impossible”. Certainly, this option is not being seriously entertained by anyone — including the Syrian opposition — even for limited operations such as securing chemical weapons sites, because it could easily become a logistical, political and military nightmare.
Arming rebels will not prevent future chemical attacks. In any case, this course of action faces stiff domestic resistance from the few western governments willing to endorse it.
No-fly zones will only limit aerial deployment of such weapons, not ground deployment via artillery projectiles, artillery rockets, mortars, landmines and sub-munitions. Furthermore, intercepting air-borne attacks would still pose the risk of potentially widespread chemical dispersal, as would bombing chemical weapons sites. In any case, there are no plans or consensus for setting up such zones.
The Al Assad regime is probably well aware that its opponents’ hands are tied when it comes to its unconventional weapons capabilities. As such, it is highly unlikely that this latest allegation of chemical weapons use will be the last in Syria or even the most deadly.
Sharif Al Nashashibi is an award-winning journalist and analyst on Arab affairs.
